Path uncertain for historic 'farm-only Farm Bill'

The 2013 Farm Bill process continues to make history, presenting new twists and turns that are a radical departure from Farm Bills past.

By Candace KrebsContributing Writer

PUEBLO, Colo. — The 2013 Farm Bill process continues to make history, presenting new twists and turns that are a radical departure from Farm Bills past.

"For a political nerd like me, it's incredibly fun to watch and it's also incredibly nerve-wracking to watch," said Brent Boydston, vice president of public policy for Colorado Farm Bureau.

Boydston was speaking to members of the organization's crops advisory committee during the annual mid-summer meeting held on Colorado State University's Pueblo campus. At issue was what happens next, now that the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a "farm only Farm Bill" for the first time since Lyndon B. Johnson was president, splitting off the nutrition title that makes up about 80 percent of the legislation's cost.

The Republican-led House also took the unprecedented move of repealing the 1938 and 1949 permanent law provisions in the version it finally passed along strict party lines following a failed attempt earlier this summer.

It's been a wild ride for farm policy experts and association lobbyists trying to keep up with the new developments while analyzing the long-term political implications.

"It's kind of like nailing jello to the wall," Boydston said.

Despite being in unchartered territory, he was willing to make a prediction about how the legislative process would unfold.

"Right now, I don't see it as feasible to get another extension done," he said. "I don't see the Senate two years in a row passing an extension."He predicted political leaders will appoint a committee to conference the bill, but the Senate will insist on using its version of the nutrition title, with only moderate cuts compared to what the House originally proposed.

In arguing for passage on the House floor, Ag Committee Chairman Frank Lucas of Oklahoma promised his colleagues that the committee would work diligently to pass a separate nutrition title. But some observers believe (or perhaps hope) that the Farm Bill conferencing process will start before then.Alan Foutz, past state CFB president and now a field representative for Congressman Cory Gardner, a House ag committee member from Yuma, said the House might have conceded defeat on reforming the nutrition title when they dropped it from their version of the bill.

Without the nutrition title included, a conference committee could forego conferencing that part of the bill, he said. If the nutrition component is left the same as it is now, the work of the conferees could likely pick up enough Democrats to pass the House, despite opposition from the most conservative Republicans, he predicted.

"It will be a win for the folks who didn't want any changes to the nutrition title," he said.

President Obama has threatened to veto any Farm Bill that does not contain food programs, and House leaders are still indicating they want to complete a separate nutrition title before the conference, leaving the path ahead uncertain.

"It's a complicated mess right now," said CFB president Don Shawcroft of Alamosa.

Uncertain future

While farm groups are eager to see a new bill adopted before the current one-year extension expires on Sept. 30, many are still reeling from the drastic means the House is taking to get there.

Foutz said Congressman Gardner made it clear to House leaders that he did not support their approach, although he did ultimately vote for the bill. A Farm Bill without nutrition programs becomes a piece of "minority" legislation in terms of spending and scope that could be very difficult to pass in future years, Foutz said.

More than 500 groups, including the wheat, corn and soybean lobbies, voiced objections to dividing up what has been a long-standing coalition of rural and urban interests. Colorado's two general interest farm groups — the Colorado Farm Bureau and Rocky Mountain Farmers Union — joined together to release a statement expressing adamant disapproval.

RMFU called the agriculture and nutrition coalition "a collaboration of the under-represented" and a "foundation stone" of their organization's political stance.

"We think it's politically smart to keep them together," Shawcroft said. "But beyond that, even just the tradition of it is a recognition that agriculture is there to feed people."

He called the repeal of permanent law "scary."

If the old laws are allowed to kick in, they reintroduce long-dormant concepts like price parity and production quotas that would be hard to administer in the modern age and would send farm subsidies skyrocketing.But without that threat, it is not clear whether legislators will have the incentive to pass a new bill every five years, he said. The 2013 bill would instead become the new baseline.

"Is it enough of a hammer, that's the question," Shawcroft said.

Foutz said his Yuma office hadn't received any calls about the Farm Bill in the last five weeks, and the topic wasn't raised during Congressman Gardner's recent town hall meetings in northeastern Colorado. Bigger concerns among the constituency were immigration reform, Environmental Protection Agency regulations and the Endangered Species Act.

In recent years, farm programs have become a smaller percentage of farm income, although federal crop insurance has taken on greater significance."Farmers think in the now," said Tim Brown, of Limon, a member of the CFB crops advisory committee. "There are so many things we have to keep up with. The Farm Bill keeps going back and forth, and I'm just sick of it."